Guidance on the design and use 

of
fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)
soil nails and ground anchors
Frans van der Merwe PrEng
Principal Geostructural Engineer
GaGE Consulting
frans@gageconsulting.co.za

Pierre Hofmann
General Manager: Geotechnical Product Line
Dextra (based in Guangdong)
phofmann@dextragroup.com

We do not fear the unknown.

We fear what we think we
know about the unknown.
 – Teal Swan
Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP)
has been used in many applications in
engineering and civil engineering. These
materials were first developed and used
in the 1930s in the USA in boats and in
aeronautical fields. Glass fibre reinforced
polymer (GFRP) bars have high strengths,
are light in weight, flexible and can be
produced more cheaply than carbon fibre.
They are also more durable than steel,
as they do not corrode. Figure 1 shows
a construction worker carrying GFRP
soil nails for the MTR Shatin Central
Link in Hong Kong. FRP has been used
in mining and tunnelling for many years
and is now being used in soil nails and
tieback ground anchor applications due
to the durability concerns associated with
conventional steel reinforcement.
No guidelines could be found that
assist the designer of soil-nailed retaining
structures in the use of FRP bars. This
article therefore aims to combine various
sources and provide guidance on the de-
sign of lateral support systems using FRP
bars as soil nails or ground anchors.
Figure 1 MTR Shatin Central Link, Hong Kong
Figure 2 Dextra GFRP rebar with FRP fibres wrapped around the longitudinal bar together
with sand coating to enhance bond strength
It is well known that steel soil nails high-yield threadbar, self-drilling anchors
are normally designed for tension only, (SDA) or multiwire high-tensile steel
although shear forces and associated strands. These elements, when used in a
bending moments might develop at the permanent scenario, require significant
interface with the failure plane. FRP is corrosion prevention measures. Often
normally considered to have small shear high-yield threadbar and SDAs are
capacities and therefore shear forces designed using a sacrificial corrosion
might influence the performance when thickness allowance. This is highly
they are used in a soil nail application. questionable over the couplers applied to
SDAs and when read in conjunction with
CURRENT PRACTICE IN THE DESIGN international codes of practice.
OF SOIL-NAILED WALLS AND The performance of a steel soil nail is
ANCHORED RETAINING STRUCTURES normally assessed by evaluating its unidi-
Current practice in southern Africa for rectional tensile capacity, and simple em-
soil-nailed or multi-anchored embedded pirical calculation methods (wedge analysis
retaining walls includes the use of either or triangular resultant earth pressure).

56 April 2020  Civil Engineering


< 2 years
(temporary)
Need to be removed
or cut at a later stage
Yes
Single corrosive
FRP
protection (SCP)
GFRP active
anchor
GFRP soil nail
Figure 3 Reinforcement selection based on corrosive environment
Although these elements also experience
shear forces and bending moments where
they intersect with the shear plane, these
checks are generally disregarded, as it is
considered that steel reinforcement in
combination with grout is much stronger
than the shear force and bending moment
requirements. These structural forces can,
however, be assessed by using geotechnical
finite element packages.
Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP)
and carbon fibre reinforced polymer
(CFRP) are durable elements but come with
other complications, such as long-term
creep (similar to geosynthetic materials),
susceptibility to alkali attack, temperature
variations and ultraviolet light exposure,
and reduced shear capacity. Fibre-
reinforced bars are anisotropic in nature
and are manufactured by a pultrusion
process embedded in either a polyester,
vinylester or epoxy resin matrix, and
therefore have a high tensile strength in
the longitudinal direction. These resins are
designed to transfer load between the fibres
that provide the required strength. CIRIA
(2005) states that polyester resin provides
good mechanical resistance and electrical
properties with reasonable chemical
resistance. Epoxy resin provides better re-
sistance to alkalis and solvents with slightly
less weathering resistance. Vinylester
Civil Engineering  April 2020
Service life
No Moderately
Double corrosion
protection (DCP)
HTS strands HTS strands
(SCP) (DCP)
Excavation (active anchoring)
Passive soil Passive soil
nail (SCP) nail (DCP)
Slope stabilisation (passive anchoring)
together with electrical and chemical resis-
tant (ECR) glass is often the chosen resin
and fibre combination due to its ability
to resist degradation. One of the main
concerns about the performance of FRP is
the potential to degrade in the long term
in the high-pH environment of the grout
body itself. Steel, in comparison, is isotropic
in nature. The shear and bond capacity
and the thread of bars can be controlled
by the addition of FRP fibres wrapped at
45° to the longitudinal direction (Cheng
et al 2009), as shown in Figure 2. GFRP is
more economical than CFRP (twice the
price of conventional strand anchors) and
will typically be the preferred option from
a cost perspective, despite CFRP having
superior stiffness and creep performance
properties. In active application (stressed
ground anchors), however, CFRP is the
preferred choice, as will be discussed under
Mechanical Behaviour later in this article.
GFRP and CFRP weigh roughly 20 and 25%
of steel respectively.
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
The current SAICE Lateral Support to
Surface Excavation Code of Practice (1989)
recommends the use of double corrosion
protection (DCP) in permanent applica-
tions, although many practitioners rather
use sacrificial thickness design methods
> 2 years
(permanent)
Corrosive
environment
Highly
FRP
Active CFRP
GFRP soil nail
(consider alkali
resistance)
on soil nails. It appears from a review of
international standards that, when working
in a highly aggressive environment, DCP
needs to be used to ensure the lifespan
of steel soil nails. The selection tree in
Figure 3 is provided to assess when FRP
would be advantageous to a project in
comparison with steel elements, and shows
that in a highly corrosive environment FRP
will be the preferred solution. In addition,
when the reinforcement needs to be cut by
a TBM or piling rig, FRP is ideal.
MECHANICAL BEHAVIOUR
Figure 4 shows the stress-strain behaviour
of various FRPs compared with steel.
It can be seen that FRPs are generally
much stronger, with a higher ultimate
strength for bars of the same diameter
when compared with conventional steel
reinforcement.
CFRP exhibits slightly lower elastic
moduli (66–100%) compared with steel,
while GFRP exhibits much lower elastic
moduli when compared with steel
(20–25% of steel). ASTEC GFRP has
elastic moduli of up to 60 GPa.
Tables 1 and 2 are provided to compare
the design and working tensile load ca-
pacity derived in accordance with ACI440
(2015 and 2022 (to be released)) for GFRP
solid bars and SANS 10162 for high-yield
57
 threadbar. GFRP also comes in hollow bar
5 000 sections that can be used as self-drilling
4 500 anchors (SDA) in collapsible profiles.
From these tables it can be established
4 000
that, although GFRP is considerably
3 500 stronger than steel, depending on its
3 000 manufacturing process, the factored
Stress (MPa)

design capacities are much smaller. This

2 500
can be attributed to the creep properties
2 000 of the FRP bars. Thomas (2019) states that
the working load for a GFRP and steel bolt
1 500
(assumed to be a high-yield threadbar) is
1 000 the same, and that a steel bar can there-
500 fore typically be replaced by a GFRP bar
of the same diameter. However, the tables
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 show that, typically, use of a GFRP might
Strain (mm/mm) require a bar slightly larger in diameter
CFRP AFRP GFRP Steel than a high-yield threadbar to ensure
that the same tensile load can be achieved
Figure 4 Stress-strain properties of GFRP, CFRP and conventional steel under working load conditions (SLS),

Table 1 Design ultimate tensile loads and working tensile loads of GFRP
GFRP bar diameter Unfactored ultimate Design ultimate tensile Working tensile capacity (kN) Axial stiffness EA
(mm) tensile load (kN) load (kN) ACI440 (2015/2022) at 100 years (MPa.m2)

19 300 114 42/62 14

25 428 161 60/89 24

32 631 239 88/132 40

41 990 375 138/207 66

Table 2 Design ultimate tensile loads and working tensile loads of high-yield threadbar
Unfactored ultimate Design ultimate tensile Working tensile capacity Axial stiffness
High-yield threadbar
tensile load (kN) load (kN) (kN) EA (MPa.m2)

20 172 110 73 62

25 269 172 114 98

32 442 281 187 160

40 691 440 293 251

Bearing plate
Splicing system
Individual
Anchor head sheathing
Grease and
Free len heat shrink
g th – 6 m
sleeve
Fixed b Swaged
ond len
gth – 6 sleeve
m

Trumpet Threaded
stud
(1) PT strand to
CFRP rebar covered (2) PT strand to CFRP rebar 12.7 mm CFRP bar Spacer
with grease covered with grease and
and heat‑shrink heat‑shrink (splicing system)
(splicing system (1) (2)

Figure 5 Prestressed CFRP rods

58 April 2020  Civil Engineering

Table 3 Design ultimate tensile loads and working tensile loads of both HTS strands and GFRP strands
Strand/bar
15.2 (HTS low-relaxation strand)
19 (GFRP)
12.7 (CFRP)
*  Below 30% unfactored ultimate tensile load to prevent significant relaxation and increased displacement of embedded retaining wall
120
100
80
Load ratio (%)
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.10 1 10
Figure 6 Creep rupture curves for GFRP and CFRP
which will be most critical for FRP when
considering ACI440 (2022).
The axial stiffness of a GFRP bar,
even with an increase in diameter, is still
lower than that of a high-yield threadbar
of one size smaller. The different material
properties indicate that larger deforma-
tion should occur in a GFRP soil-nail wall
compared with a soil-nail wall reinforced
with high-yield threadbar. No case studies
could be found to prove this.
GFRP or CFRP can also be used to
replace HTS stressed tiebacks which might
cause significant problems in a permanent
scenario with double corrosion protec-
tion requirements. It should, however,
be remembered that ground anchors are
typically made of high-tensile steel (3 to 4
times stronger than conventional steel) and
that this plays a major role in determining
the number of “equivalent” GFRP or CFRP
bars. Typical CFRP anchor configuration
details are provided in Figure 5. The
CFRP is spliced with a swaged sleeve and
threaded stud, as shown in the figure.
Table 3 compares the conventional
15.2 mm HTS low-relaxation strand with
a 19 mm GFRP rod. The table shows that
Civil Engineering  April 2020
Unfactored Working tensile
Design ultimate Tensile capacity Axial stiffness EA
ultimate tensile capacity (kN) at
tensile load (kN) (kN) at 2 years (MPa.m2)
load (kN) 100 years
260 210 168 140 36
300 114 100* 42 14
250 123 123 16
behaviour of GFRP bars, which is similar
to that of geogrids.
Conventionally, for geogrids in the
serviceability limit state, the time-
dependent constant tensile force-versus-
strain behaviour, at various magnitudes
of working loads, is very important. This
is normally reported as an isochronous
curve, and a post-construction strain limit
of 0.5–1.0% for MSEW structures governs
the SLS. If an additional strain from post-
construction of 1% occurs on an 8 m free
length, additional movement of 80 mm
can occur. This would be detrimental to
100 1 000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000 the behaviour of an embedded retaining
Time (hours) wall and therefore the aim is to design for
CFRP GFRP close to 0% post-construction strain with
GFRP and CFRP.
Although it does not seem to be
common practice to provide isochronous
3 × 19 mm GFRP bars may be required to curves, or plots of creep strain versus time
replace one 15.2 mm HTS strand effec- at various stress levels for particular fibre
tively for a long-term (100-year) applica- reinforced bars as detailed in ACI440, this
tion. This also implies that the combined is considered crucial to assess.
axial stiffness will be larger than that Youssef and Benmokrane (2014)
of one 15.2 mm HTS strand, and that undertook creep tests on six commercially
smaller additional deflection could result available GFRP bars in Canada, at tensile
with additional load attracted during loads of 15 and 30% of the ultimate tensile
excavation in a multi-anchored piled wall. strength. These tensile force ratios are
Also, a larger-diameter borehole will be close to the SLS tensile capacity derived
required to house the additional number in Tables 1–3, and are in accordance with
of GFRP bars, but a larger diameter will ACI440. The bars loaded to 15% of the
result in an increased bond resistance. short-term ultimate tensile strength had
Today, however, it is standard practice to almost no creep during the constant load
only use CFRP bars in permanent active test, while the bars stressed to 30% crept
applications (stressed ground anchors), as slightly, but within acceptable limits,
the differences between HTS and CFRP with time.
are less pronounced. The significant The creep rupture of GFRP and CFRP
reduction in short-term ultimate strength is important for the ULS design strength
can be attributed to the long-term creep and is provided in Figure 6. The figure
The axial stiffness of a GFRP bar, even with an increase in diameter, is
still lower than that of a high-yield threadbar of one size smaller. The
different material properties indicate that larger deformation should
occur in a GFRP soil-nail wall compared with a soil-nail wall reinforced
with high-yield threadbar. No case studies could be found to prove this.
59

Figure 7 Double shear test on GFRP bar
shows the strength retention of CFRP and
GFRP with the reduced tensile capacity.
For a 100-year period the retention due to
creep is 45% and 70% for GFRP and CFRP
respectively.
To avoid failure of an FRP-reinforced
member due to creep rupture, safe design
stress levels below TULS should be main-
tained, and to prevent significant creep
movements, safe stress levels less than
TSLS must be maintained. Table 1 already
factored the short-term ultimate strengths
of ASTEC bars accordingly. The equations
below are simplifications of the ACI440
recommendations:
For the serviceability limit state, the
following limits are applicable:
GFRP: TSLS = 0.2CEf fu*
= 0.2 × 0.7 f fu*A.
= 0.14f fu*A
CFRP: TSLS = 0.55CEf fu*
= 0.55 × 0.9 f fu*
= 0.495f fu*A
In the ultimate limit state, the following
limits are applicable:
GFRP: TULS = φCEf fu*

= 0.55 × 0.7 f fu*A
= 0.385f fu*A
60
CFRP: TULS =

φCEf fu*
= 0.55x0.9 f fu*
= 0.495f fu*A
ASTEC GFRPs were tested in shear
and performed well. The shear capacity
increases significantly if the angle being
tested at is smaller than 90° (Thomas
2019), as some of the shear load is trans-
ferred into a tensile load component. This
shear capacity can be higher than that of
steel. One should, however, also factor in
this contribution to shear capacity with
the applicable tensile factors provided
in ACI440.
Shear capacity can be calculated
empirically (Thomas 2019) or using actual
test results. Testing is typically under-
taken in accordance with ASTM D7617
and can be done with either a single shear
test or a double shear test (Figure 7).
ASTEC recently undertook numerous
tests on GFRP, with both vinylester and
epoxy resin bars. The shear and moment
capacity were also calculated in ac-
cordance with ACI440. These results are
provided in Table 4.
Shear capacity can be calculated empirically or using actual test results.
Testing is typically undertaken in accordance with ASTM D7617 and
can be done with either a single shear test or a double shear test.
(a) (b)
BOND PERFORMANCE
Although the recommended formulae
typically given for the design of soil nails
and anchors assume that a uniform
increased capacity can be achieved with
an increase in fixed length, this is in
fact not correct, as was already shown
by Ostermayer in 1975 (Figure 8). This
uniform increase can be reasonably as-
sumed for short nails, typically <2.5 m.
For lengths exceeding 2.5 m the achieved
bond strength between the soil and the
grout body typically decreases with an
increase in length; a significant increase in
length results in only a small increase in
capacity. For more elastic reinforcement,
such as GFRP bars, the average bond
strength achieved is lower than that for
HTS. Figure 9 by Barley and Graham for
London Clays (taken from Bridges 2015)
shows that the stiffer (EA) the tendon,
the more uniform the stress distribution
along its length, and the more efficient
the system is in increasing tensile resis-
tance with an increase in fixed length.
The guaranteed grout–GFRP bar bond
strength for Dextra bars is 9 600 kPa.
April 2020  Civil Engineering
Table 4 Shear and moment capacity of ASTEC GFRP bars
GFRP Unfactored ultimate 90° shear Design ultimate bending moment SLS bending moment capacity (kN.m)
bar capacity assuming 150 MPa (kN) capacity (kN.m) (ACI440 (2015/2022))

19 42 0.23 0.09/0.135

25 73 0.525 0.19/0.285

32 120 1.113 0.40/0.60

41 198 2.34 0.84/1.26

It is, however, always recommended

Y that the bond capacity be confirmed by
2 000 undertaking pull-out tests, and that the
above reduction with an increase in bond
1
1 800 length be considered if testing short nails.

1 600 INTERACTION AT THE FAILURE PLANE

Soil nails work predominately in ten-
1 400 2 sion, but due to relative displacement on
the failure plane, shear forces will also
1 develop in soil nails. These shear loads
1 200

3 will induce a bending moment in the soil

15.0
1 000 9.2 2 nail at a small distance inside the failure
15.8 9.5
15.5 15.9 wedge and behind the failure plane, as
9.3 shown in Figure 10. The behaviour is
800
9.9 9.7
9.2 3 similar to that of a free-headed pile. These
9.2 8.6
600 structural forces are normally not critical
9.3
8.2 under serviceability conditions, as only
9.1 9.1
400 small shear movements normally occur,
9.4 16.0 4 but they could be problematic in the ulti-
11.3
9.2 9.3 mate limit state. The mobilisation of shear
200
12.6 10.0
10.1 forces and bending moments in soil nails
13.6
0
is affected by the thickness of the shear
0 2 4 6 8 10 X zone. The wider the shear zone, the lower
the shear forces and bending moments.
Figure 8 Tensile capacity of fixed length (Y in kN) with a fixed length of X in m Conventionally for high-yield
threadbar, this phenomenon can be
reviewed using the equations provided
300 in SANS 10162 for combined shear and
tensile load, and for combined tensile load
and bending moment, namely:
250

Tu Mu
+ ≤ 1.0
Average bond strength

200 Tr Mr

150 and

Tu Vu
100
+ ≤ 1.4
Tr Vr

50 This phenomenon was assessed using

both 2D and 3D geotechnical finite
element software, modelling the nails as
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 beam elements to ensure that shear forces
Fixed length (m) and bending moments could develop.
GFRP 22 mm bar GFRP strands Steel 50 mm bar Steel 20 mm bar The example consists of a 5 m soil-nail
wall in a silty sandy material. A typical
Figure 9 D
 ecrease in bond strength with an increase in fixed length (after Barley & Graham manual calculation will assume a redis-
for London Clays, Bridges 2015) tribution of a triangular pressure for a

Civil Engineering  April 2020 61


Mmax V
Mmax
Figure 10 Development of bending moment due to shear load intercept at failure plane
5 m high wall, i.e. 0.5γKaH2sFoS = 0.5(18)
(0.33)(52)1.5(1.5) = 167 kN. For a three-nail
vertical spacing, 55 kN ultimate capacity
and 37 kN serviceability capacity would
normally be designed for. According to
ACI440 (2020), this would require the use
of a GFRP bar of 19 mm governed by the
SLS, and a 16 mm high-yield threadbar
governed by the ULS in accordance
with SANS 10162 (ignoring sacrificial
thickness allowances) when considering
tensile load only. In addition to the above
calculation, it is assumed the excavation
has sufficient “cohesion” to stand up verti-
cally during excavation without support
before the application of shotcrete and
mesh, as described by Van der Merwe
(a)
Figure 11 (a) RS2 model of soil nail wall example and (b) RS3 model of soil nail wall example
62
and Schulz-Poblete (2019). Also, the nails
need to be angled to intercept the failure
plane at an angle larger than normal to
ensure that tensile loads develop and that
the nails do not go into compression. This
will also ensure that bending moments in
the soil nails are smaller.
The new guidelines on numerical
modelling using EN1997 (2022+) were
followed to assess the structural forces in
the soil nails:
1. Input/Material Factoring Approach
(MFA) using:
QQ factors of actions γ for GEO limit
F
states
QQ factors on material properties γ
M
from set EQU/GEO.
(b)
The nails need to be angled to
intercept the failure plane at
an angle larger than normal to
ensure that tensile loads develop
and that the nails do not go
into compression. This will also
ensure that bending moments
in the soil nails are smaller.
There are two MFA checks, one where
material properties are factored before
all the stages from Stage 1, and the other
after every stage to assess the structural
forces.
2. Output/Effects Factoring Approach
(EFA)
QQ factors of actions γ and effects-of-
F
action γE for STR-P limit states as
given in SANS 10160-1
QQ factors on material properties γ
M
from set STR/STR-P.
The soil nails were modelled in a staged
excavation in RS2 and RS3 (Rocscience
2019), as shown in Figures 11(a) and 11(b).
Table 5 summarises the structural
forces derived in the nails from the FE
analysis, assuming the bending stiffness
with an uncracked grout body.
It can be seen from the structural
forces in Table 5 that the shear forces are
small, contrary to what was believed, but
that large moments (relative to the bars’
moment capacities) develop. Therefore the
nail should be sized as follows to prevent
April 2020  Civil Engineering
exceeding the SLS or ULS stress limits in Table 5 Nail forces from EFA, MFA (from first stage) and MFA (after every stage)
the fibres furthest from the neutral axis Bending moment
Method Axial (kN) Shear force (kN)
(ignoring tensile and compressive capacity (kN.m)
from the grout body):
EFA (unfactored SLS) 31.5 0.18 0.19

T My EFA (factored by 1.35) 42.5 0.25 0.26

σ uls or σsls> +
A I MFA (all stages factored) 77 0.3 0.27

MFA (final stage factored) 69 1.2 0.225

where σuls or σsls is the design ultimate ten-
sile load or the working tensile load divided
by the cross-sectional area respectively.
This check is undertaken as follows:
0 . 27
239 77
> +
32 2
32 2
π π
2 000 2 000
a 32 mm GFRP bar in the ULS.
For the SLS:
0.19
88 31
> +
32 2
32 2
π π
2 000 2 000
64
a 32 mm GFRP bar is required using
ACI440 (2022) recommendations.
For an equivalent high-yield threadbar, and
allowing for sacrificial thickness, the ULS
will require the use of a 25 mm bar. Under
the above SLS loading conditions the grout
section will, however, crack due to the large
tensile stresses that develop in the grout
body, and perhaps the structural properties
(EA and EI) of only the GFRP bar should be
used as input in the FE model.
Therefore, when a cracked grout body
is assumed (as by Shiu & Chang 2005),
and assuming only the bending stiffness
32
of the bar in the FE analysis, the diameters
2 000 can be decreased by one size for high-yield
32 4 threadbar and two sizes for GFRP due to
π
1 000 the reduced bending moments developing
64 in the GFRP soil nails. Large shearbox test
studies with GFRP soil nails would prove
valuable in assessing the behaviour of
more brittle GFRP soil nails.
32
COST COMPARISON
2 000 When a high-yield threadbar is compared
32 4 with a GFRP bar of the same diameter,
π
1 000 the cost of the GFRP will be 1 to 1.5
times the cost of the high-yield threadbar,
depending on the number of couplers re-
quired. However, when allowance is made
for DCP HDPE sheathing to protect the
high-yield threadbar from corrosion, the
GFRP bar will become more economical.
CFRP typically costs two to three times
the price of a comparable GFRP bar.
CONCLUSIONS
GFRP soil nails and CFRP stressed
anchors are recognised technology
with excellent durability for design lives
exceeding 100 years. The long-term
creep properties of GFRP and CFRP
significantly affect the design working
loads of these elements and eliminate
the requirement for double corrosion
protection. Although the contribution of
the bending moment and shear capacity
of soil nails is typically ignored in the
design of conventional soil nails, it is
recommended that these structural
forces should be assessed and the ele-
ment designed accordingly to ensure
that brittle nail failures do not occur.
Typically, a GFRP bar, for Dextra prod-
ucts, of one diameter larger needs to be
used in comparison with a conventional
high-yield threadbar solution, as shown
in this study. Pull-out resistance might
be lower than for conventional soil nails
and needs to be tested to ensure that
there is sufficient length behind the
failure plane. The costs of these GFRP
bars should be comparable to those of
high-yield threadbar when the need for
DCP sheathing is eliminated.
NOTE
Reference details are available from the
authors. 

Invitation to all history-minded SAICE members

50th Anniversary of the Orange River Project
The Orange River Project was one the largest water projects
ever undertaken in South Africa.
To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the completion
of this major project, the SAICE History and Heritage Panel and
SAICE Water Division are planning to release a commemorative
booklet. It will probably be in A4 softcover format, similar to the
Water Division’s 50th anniversary booklet of a few years ago.
As the technical aspects of the project have already been
covered in detail over many years, the intention is to concen-
trate more on the reminiscences and experiences of people
who worked on the project.
The writing of the booklet is still in the preliminary phase,
and we are looking for people who would like to contribute
or become involved. Debbie Besseling, who acts as adminis-
trator for a number of the SAICE Divisions, has agreed to help
with editing the content.
Anyone who is interested in contributing or becoming
involved should please contact Chris Roth, chairman of the
History and Heritage Panel, at the following address:
chris.roth@up.ac.za
We look forward to hearing from you! 

Civil Engineering  April 2020 63